My General Political Philosophy

Thursday, 8 December 2016

Ethics

In gen­er­al I sup­port can­di­dates, leg­is­la­tion, and civil be­hav­iors that most close­ly meet my eth­i­cal and moral stan­dards. The dis­cern­ment process be­comes pro­gres­sive­ly more re­fined as nec­es­sary, which, it turns out, isn’t very of­ten. I was raised Catholic, so my moral and eth­i­cal foun­da­tions are Judeo-Christian. Core tenets:

…Thou shalt love thy neigh­bour as thy­self. There is none oth­er com­mand­ment greater than the­se.
Mark 12:31

But he, will­ing to jus­ti­fy him­self, said un­to Jesus, And who is my neigh­bour? And Jesus an­swer­ing said, A cer­tain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his rai­ment, and wound­ed him, and de­part­ed, leav­ing him half dead. And by chance there came down a cer­tain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the oth­er side. And like­wise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the oth­er side. But a cer­tain Samaritan, as he jour­neyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had com­pas­sion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pour­ing in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the mor­row when he de­part­ed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said un­to him, Take care of him; and what­so­ev­er thou spendest more, when I come again, I will re­pay thee. Which now of the­se three, thinkest thou, was neigh­bour un­to him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mer­cy on him. Then said Jesus un­to him, Go, and do thou like­wise.
Luke 10:29 – 37

And the King shall an­swer and say un­to them, Verily I say un­to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it un­to one of the least of the­se my brethren, ye have done it un­to me.
Matthew 25:40

Reiterating: Meet those stan­dards and get my sup­port. Oppose them and I’m an op­po­nent.

Reason

I sup­port can­di­dates and leg­is­la­tion that make the cor­rect moral, eth­i­cal, and rea­son­able de­ci­sions, even when they are dif­fi­cult. Policies and po­si­tions based on sci­ence, em­pir­i­cal re­search, and long-term vi­a­bil­i­ty get my sup­port. I don’t be­lieve in quick fix­es. Government works best when it is evo­lu­tion­ary — a se­ries of very grad­u­al changes we can be­lieve in. If a leg­is­la­tor or piece of leg­is­la­tion does not meet or im­pedes the pro­gress of cor­rect moral, eth­i­cal, or ra­tio­nal de­ci­sion-mak­ing, I op­pose.

Anti-in­cum­ben­cy, Complacency, & Overton Windows

Barring dis­qual­i­fy­ing ide­o­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences, if a can­di­date or par­ty has been in of­fice or in pow­er in an area for a long time, I’m prob­a­bly go­ing to vote for their op­po­nent, es­pe­cial­ly in a pri­ma­ry. I blame this on 30 years of hear­ing the same names on the night­ly news. A Bush has been ei­ther President or Vice-President for 20 years of my life. Clintons have been in the spot­light for the same amount of time. The same names have been around in Cleveland for as long as I’ve been here. I’m not in­to dy­nas­ties — fa­mil­ial, eth­nic, or oth­er­wise. I thought it was hi­lar­i­ous that the best the Ohio Democratic Party could come up with for Senate this year was Ted Strickland, & the best they could do for the last Governor run was Ed Fitzgerald. Reheated, thin gru­el. Yum! ← This, by the way, is how I feel about most ma­jor can­di­dates that run for of­fice.

I al­so think that the longer a can­di­date is in­cum­bent — the longer they have to be­come com­fort­able, com­pla­cent, and like­ly to ig­nore their con­stituen­cy. You keep a knife sharp by hon­ing it. The same prin­ci­ple ap­plies to peo­ple. Comfortable peo­ple are dull. I think every in­cum­bent should be chal­lenged in a pri­ma­ry when up for re-elec­tion. No free pass­es.

I al­so vote to shift the Overton Window closer to­ward the Judeo-Christian ethic il­lus­trat­ed above.

Hoosier Libertarianism

I don’t want leg­is­la­tors or leg­is­la­tion to dic­tate to me or oth­ers how and in what way our pri­vate, per­son­al busi­ness is han­dled. All y’all de­serve the pro­tec­tions enu­mer­at­ed in our con­sti­tu­tion. And by all y’all I mean all y’all.

Whatever Remains

I re­al­ize that this de­scrip­tion of my po­lit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy isn’t nailed down to the last shin­gle, but I don’t think it needs to be. That or­tho­doxy re­sults in the po­lit­i­cal cli­mate we cur­rent­ly loathe. When there were grey ar­eas to be had in a pol­i­tics, I wel­comed the chance to dis­cuss them, learn, and pos­si­bly have my mind changed. Those days seem to be long past, and not re­turn­ing any time soon.

Saccades

Thursday, 26 November 2015

Today, while read­ing Tom Vanderbilt’s The Pleasure and Pain of Speed from Nautilus’ Issue 9, I learned about the sac­cade. This is the term for the rapid move­ment of eyes be­tween fix­a­tion on dif­fer­ent ob­jects. Our vi­su­al per­cep­tion is ba­si­cal­ly turned off dur­ing this time — which, ap­par­ent­ly, makes up about 60 — 90 min­utes of our day.

This ties in nice­ly to an an­thro­po­log­i­cal the­o­ry I have that I wrote about over a decade ago: The Space Between Thoughts. I think we have an in­stinc­tu­al aware­ness that our per­cep­tions are in­com­plete — and then we come up with all kinds of sto­ries and the­o­ries for what hap­pens in those gaps, and where our per­cep­tion fails. What hap­pens dur­ing a sac­cade. The sac­cade is where the coin reap­pears — where the mag­ic hap­pens.

It’s nice to fi­nal­ly have a word for it.

Historical Footnotes

Wednesday, 2 September 2015

I posit that the event hori­zon of “his­tor­i­cal­ly im­por­tant” as a qual­i­ty of in­for­ma­tion is the point at which the dataset dis­ap­pears from liv­ing mem­o­ry. The mag­ni­tude of cer­tain events en­sures that they will be record­ed for pos­ter­i­ty, but even then, the rea­sons be­hind that record­ing fade as the peo­ple who ex­pe­ri­enced it die. I might be us­ing the wrong terms here. Maybe it’s not his­to­ry I’m talk­ing about, but an­thro­pol­o­gy. History is “the­se are the things that hap­pened”; an­thro­pol­o­gy is “the­se are the ways peo­ple act­ed.”

Living as I do, in a so­ci­ety where many peo­ple are ar­guably ob­sessed with record­ing and archiv­ing every de­tail of their lives, I won­der what meth­ods fu­ture historians/​anthropologists will use to sift wheat from chaff — es­pe­cial­ly when, as this post is ev­i­dence for, so much of what is shared and saved is chaff.

That’s long-term his­toric­i­ty. If his­to­ry is still be­ing record­ed 5,000 years from now, this whole epoch will like­ly be re­duced to a one-lin­er: “An age of tech­no­log­i­cal growth so rapid it’s ef­fects threat­ened to de­stroy civ­i­liza­tion.”

Specific to this is the rise of the au­to­mat­ed au­to­bi­og­ra­phy. People have been post­ing things on­line so long now that there are ser­vices to show us and let us share what we were do­ing to the day, 1, 3, 5, or 10 years ago. Is there a broad­er de­sire to con­sume the­se mini-his­to­ries, or do they just ex­ist to serve our need to feel more im­por­tant than we are? It doesn’t have to be either/​or. My bet is that it’s an ad­mix­ture of onanism, ex­hi­bi­tion­ism, and voyeurism.

Signal to noise de­pends on your ears.

Trash is trea­sure.

Lauds

Sunday, 26 April 2015

This morning, my dog and I caught God
trying to sneak through the city like
a man skipping Mass in search of a drink.

He still filled the sky and his steps were
like the echoes of an empty hallway.
My dog just wagged her tail but I

shouted at him:
I SEE YOU, OLD AFRAID MAN!
He didn’t turn, just created a dirty rabbit

which he threw over-shoulder at my dog. 
I don’t know if my dog or the rabbit was
more surprised. The rabbit dissipated 

using natural rabbit-magic, and when I
looked, so had God. The city whispered
an antiphon: Kýrie, eléison.

On Aging

Sunday, 1 March 2015

Aging is the process of learn­ing to ap­pre­ci­ate grey­ness. It is on­ly a gen­tle irony that our hair takes on that hue. The things chil­dren ap­pre­ci­ate and learn about are de­fined by clar­i­ty: a col­or, a taste, an emo­tion. As time pass­es and ex­pe­ri­ences pile up, red be­comes oxblood, sweet­ness and emo­tions take shape by their in­ten­si­ty.

My near­ly-sev­en son cares not for fic­tion. He wants facts in books. The clar­i­ty has grown in scope, but not in com­plex­i­ty. This will con­tin­ue un­til at some point he will be­come old.

That’s where I sit: on old side of things. You be­come old when your ex­pe­ri­en­tial knowl­edge gives you the abil­i­ty to dis­cern facts from things that pur­port to be facts; and you ap­pre­hend or com­pre­hend that the act of know­ing is equal parts be­lief and agen­da.

So I no longer de­mand clar­i­ty. My scope has nar­rowed. I know that no mat­ter how good that beer might be, I’ll en­joy bour­bon more. I know that there is no point try­ing to con­vince peo­ple who hold fun­da­men­tal po­si­tions on a top­ic to change their minds. I have reached the lim­its of clar­i­ty and move cau­tious­ly in the vast mist that ex­ists be­tween facts, and be­tween knowl­edge and re­al­i­ty. Red is a gra­di­ent, fla­vors are com­bined, emo­tions are deep and sa­vored. I un­der­stand how it is frus­trat­ing to the not-old to see what ap­pears to be a lack of con­cern, or a con­cern with the un­sub­stan­tial. The fre­quen­cy of the old is longer, both ex­pe­ri­en­tial­ly and rel­a­tivis­ti­cal­ly.

To be old is to be a ship hap­pi­ly lost in fog, sa­vor­ing the sub­tle­ty of the phan­toms that flit about the cor­ners of our eyes, that, when we were young, we on­ce mis­took for friends.

Empathy is Not Always a Virtue

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

I’ve writ­ten a few times about the qual­i­ties of em­pa­thy and our society’s gen­er­al need for more of it in the last year or so. However, em­pa­thy is not al­ways a virtue. When you em­pathize with some­one so much that you be­come emo­tion­al­ly in­ca­pable of meet­ing your own re­spon­si­bil­i­ties (like, say, tak­ing your fi­nal ex­ams), you have left the path of rea­son and ac­count­abil­i­ty, and be­come a type of fun­da­men­tal­ist.

And there is no ef­fec­tive mode of dis­course with a fun­da­men­tal­ist.

Thoughts on Privilege, Listening, Empathy, Discretion & Brokenness

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

I’m 33, and I think I’m fi­nal­ly start­ing to in­ter­nal­ize what priv­i­lege means. I’ve al­ways per­ceived its fram­ing as a neg­a­tive. “You have priv­i­lege, and that’s not fair.” To which my thought has al­ways been: “Okay, so what am I sup­posed to do about it?” Denying it is fool­ish, and not us­ing it (which is what I’ve tried to do for a long time) is al­so fool­ish. I feel like the best use of my priv­i­lege is to ex­er­cise it in ways that are the op­po­site of pa­tron­iza­tion.

The eas­i­est method to start, for me, is to lis­ten with in­ten­tion to those who don’t share my priv­i­lege and have things to say. So the Under 30 open mic at Guide to Kulchur every week is a good chance for me to do that. I’m the on­ly old per­son there. Meanwhile, up­stairs, there’s a po­et­ry chap­book called “For the Young Poets of Cleveland” writ­ten by an old white guy who is prob­a­bly in his late 50s. He was a grown-ass man when I was 4. The epony­mous po­em is a list of rules for young po­ets to fol­low. The sec­ond po­em is a trib­ute to d.a. levy. That pins this guy square­ly to the priv­i­lege of every oth­er old white guy po­et in town who thinks po­et­ry be­gan and end­ed with the Beats. No young po­et is go­ing to pick up that chap­book with any­thing oth­er than de­ri­sion in mind. The dude ain’t got a clue be­cause he’d rather be di­dac­tic than lis­ten to what ac­tu­al young po­ets have to say. That’s what I’m try­ing not to be. (UPDATE: And thanks to Andy, in the com­ments be­low, I’ve learned that the guy hasn’t even lived in the area for 30 years.)

So I lis­ten. Hard. And I try to re­lease my eas­i­ly reached priv­i­leged judg­ments, be­cause that’s not any sort of pro­duc­tive.

Next up is em­pa­thy. I’ve al­ways been pret­ty good at em­pa­thy, but I re­al­ized that I know that and have there­fore not been prac­tic­ing it. A lazy em­pa­thy. When I lis­ten hard, I can’t be lazi­ly em­pa­thet­ic. There are plen­ty of sit­u­a­tions that I haven’t been in that make it hard for me to un­der­stand what and why a per­son is feel­ing the way they are feel­ing, but their feel­ings are still valid. There’s no such thing as an in­valid feel­ing. I’ve been work­ing re­al­ly hard with my son on this, try­ing to de­vel­op a healthy un­der­stand­ing of feel­ings and their caus­es; a place we can both feel safe shar­ing. I’m try­ing to ex­tend that em­pa­thy to every­one else that shares things with me. Maybe I haven’t been in the ex­act sit­u­a­tion, but try­ing to un­der­stand, and ask­ing to un­der­stand get me most of the way there. Chances are I’ve had the same feel­ings my­self on­ce in awhile.

What I’ve most re­cent­ly awok­en to is the virtue of dis­cre­tion. Typically dis­cre­tion is as­signed to one’s per­son­al af­fairs, but that’s small pota­toes com­pared to its ex­er­cise when it comes to the af­fairs that an­oth­er shares with you. I’ve told many peo­ple over the years that se­crets die with me, and I’m still bat­ting a thou­sand on that count. I nev­er re­al­ly thought of that in­ten­tion as some­thing par­tic­u­lar­ly valu­able, but late­ly I’ve re­al­ized that it shouldn’t be de­nied. I know of not a few friend­ships that have dis­in­te­grat­ed be­cause some­thing was shared in con­fi­dence, but the con­fi­dant could not keep their trap shut. Few things need more care than the vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty a friend en­trusts to you. Friendship can be treat­ed far too flip­pant­ly.

All of this sort of ties in­to a fi­nal idea I’ve been chew­ing on. The con­cept that we are all part­ly bro­ken. The need to rec­og­nize that fact, the need to un­der­stand that peo­ple han­dle their bro­ken parts in dif­fer­ent ways. Some pre­tend they are whole, some pre­tend they are whol­ly bro­ken. There are as many ways to per­form bro­ken­ness as there are ways to be bro­ken. If you un­der­stand that, ac­cept your own bro­ken bits, the prac­tice of in­ten­tion­al lis­ten­ing, em­pa­thy & dis­cre­tion be­comes very ful­fill­ing. You know you’re do­ing bet­ter at en­sur­ing noth­ing you do makes chips and shat­ters on an­oth­er per­son. You’ll still do it, be­cause you’re part­ly bro­ken too, but may­be some­one else will lis­ten, em­pathize, and hon­or your shar­ing.